Obama targets NAFTA but says supports free trade

[GaryC 7]

By Jeff Mason Mon Feb 25, 8:18 AM ET

LORAIN, Ohio (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama assured U.S. trading partners on Sunday that he did not oppose free trade despite making increasingly critical comments about multilateral deals such as NAFTA.

Obama, an Illinois senator, has turned trade into a centerpiece of his campaign in Ohio, where trade agreements are particularly unpopular as domestic manufacturing jobs disappear.

Texas and Ohio hold nominating contests on March 4, and Obama has criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement at campaign stops in both states.

He has pounded rival Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, for switching positions on NAFTA and said repeatedly that he would revisit that pact to instill environmental and labor standards.

But Obama, who would enter the White House with only four years of experience as a U.S. senator in addition to several years in the Illinois legislature, said his misgivings about NAFTA did not mean he was opposed to such accords in general.

Asked how other countries should interpret his position, Obama responded that he supported free trade but wanted it to be fair.

"What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio.

"I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."

NAFTA went into force in 1994 while former President Bill Clinton held office.

Hillary Clinton, who called the pact a success in her memoir, says she has a plan to review and fix it and accuses Obama of complaining but not having a proposal to alter it.

Obama said he opposed NAFTA from the start and U.S. workers were not the only ones to suffer from its effects. Wages and benefits in Mexico had not been improved by the treaty, he said.

Looking forward, Obama said the World Trade Organization's Doha round of trade talks should have provisions that reject child labor and poor environmental standards while creating opportunities for developing nations to sell their goods to wealthy countries.

"When we think about the Doha round of trade agreements, for instance, I think it is perfectly appropriate for us to say that very poor countries should be able to export into wealthier countries on a basis that allows them to lift their standard of living," he said.

"We've got to have some minimal standards and we've got to have enforcement around things like safety standards."

Obama said ignoring the effect that trade agreements were having on workers would only lead to more protectionist tendencies in both the Republican and Democratic parties, which, in turn, would hurt the economy.

The economy has become the major issue in the U.S. presidential campaign with voters worried about a possible recession taking hold before the general election in November.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080225/pl_nm/..._obama_trade_dc

[pedroh 21]

so free trade and NAFTA are equally bad? I know NAFTA is not the best, but what's wrong with a free trade economy?

[GaryC 7]

so free trade and NAFTA are equally bad? I know NAFTA is not the best, but what's wrong with a free trade economy?

NAFTA is free trade. Personally I like NAFTA, I just thought this was strange. Sorta like Kerry saying "I voted for it before I voted against it".

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

so free trade and NAFTA are equally bad? I know NAFTA is not the best, but what's wrong with a free trade economy?

From the article:

Asked how other countries should interpret his position, Obama responded that he supported free trade but wanted it to be fair.

"What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio.

"I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."

Sounds good to me.

[pedroh 21]

so free trade and NAFTA are equally bad? I know NAFTA is not the best, but what's wrong with a free trade economy?

From the article:

Asked how other countries should interpret his position, Obama responded that he supported free trade but wanted it to be fair.

"What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio.

"I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."

Sounds good to me.

word

[Caladan 19]

There are more free trade agreements out there than just NAFTA, Gary. One could think that free trade (or education, or regulating international marriage, or anything) was a good idea generally while not liking a specific proposal (NCLB, IMBRA.)

[peejay 327]

It's really convenient that Obama wasn't even around to go on record when this was originally being debated. How long ago did he go on record as being against NAFTA? Maybe after his handlers decided he could get some political mileage from it?

His position seems like another case of Monday morning armchair quarterbacking of a game that got played without him on Sunday.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

There are more free trade agreements out there than just NAFTA, Gary. One could think that free trade (or education, or regulating international marriage, or anything) was a good idea generally while not liking a specific proposal (NCLB, IMBRA.)

Barack Obama supported the free trade agreement with Peru.

From Business Week:

Obama voted for a free-trade pact with Peru that contained provisos to protect the Peruvian environment and Peruvian labor.

[Nikita2Charles 32]

Ask anybody who has lost their Jobs, or forced to train their replacement workers they will tell you on a personal level the fairness of Free Trade

Now it's even moving to the high tech level, not just blue collar Jobs.

Ask any Engineers who has to fly to Malaysia, Phillipines, India, Singapore to set up the company new mfg office, fabs, and train their replacement workers. And GET LAID OFF as soon as you get back, or as soon as the project is completed and your help is no longer required. They will tell you about about the fairness of FREE TRADE

Ask anybody whose company hold their SEVERANCE PACKAGE until they have completed the training of their replacement workers, They will tell you about the fairness of FREE TRADE.

Fact is

Let say the company decide to move mfg or part of engineering overseas, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, you either quit find another JOB no severance package even though you have been there for years and gave so much to the company.

To actually see grown man with tears on their eyes when Lay off times hit, it's not a funny site.

When you have to cherry pick who to layoff it's the worse thing you ever wished for.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There are more free trade agreements out there than just NAFTA, Gary. One could think that free trade (or education, or regulating international marriage, or anything) was a good idea generally while not liking a specific proposal (NCLB, IMBRA.)

Barack Obama supported the free trade agreement with Peru.

From Business Week:

Obama voted for a free-trade pact with Peru that contained provisos to protect the Peruvian environment and Peruvian labor.

That would seem consistent with what he's saying.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

so free trade and NAFTA are equally bad? I know NAFTA is not the best, but what's wrong with a free trade economy?

From the article:

Asked how other countries should interpret his position, Obama responded that he supported free trade but wanted it to be fair.

"What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio.

"I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."

Sounds good to me.

Yep. Why is this newsworthy?